Justia Oregon Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The defendant and his then-wife, J, lived in Deschutes County, Oregon, and their marriage ended in divorce proceedings after J obtained a restraining order against the defendant. The criminal charges arose from two separate incidents: one in December 2016, when the defendant dragged J from their bedroom to the yard in freezing weather, and another in July 2017, when the defendant damaged J’s car with a power drill and made threatening statements. The December incident led to a second-degree kidnapping charge, while the July incident resulted in a menacing charge. The state also filed a motion in limine to limit certain evidence related to the divorce proceedings.The Deschutes County Circuit Court denied the defendant’s motions for judgment of acquittal on both charges and granted the state’s motion in limine in part, restricting argument about whether J gained a tactical advantage in the divorce from her allegations. The jury convicted the defendant of both kidnapping and menacing. On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, affirmed both convictions, though several judges dissented on aspects of the kidnapping and menacing rulings and the scope of the motion in limine.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed the case. It held that the evidence was insufficient to support the kidnapping conviction because the movement of J did not constitute taking her “from one place to another” as required by ORS 163.225(1)(a); specifically, the movement did not increase her isolation or restrict her freedom of movement in the manner contemplated by the statute. The court reversed the kidnapping conviction. However, the court affirmed the menacing conviction, finding that the defendant’s words and conduct were sufficient for a rational factfinder to conclude he intended to place J in fear of imminent serious physical injury. The court also affirmed the trial court’s ruling on the motion in limine. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with these holdings. View "State v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged in a single indictment with multiple counts of sexual abuse involving two minor victims, A and M, who are cousins. The alleged conduct toward A spanned four years and involved repeated touching, while the conduct toward M consisted of two isolated incidents. The defendant moved to sever the charges relating to each victim, arguing that joinder would cause substantial prejudice, particularly because the evidence against M was weaker and the jury might improperly use the stronger evidence regarding A to convict on the charges involving M. The trial court denied the motion to sever, and the case proceeded to trial. The jury convicted the defendant on all counts involving A and one count involving M.On appeal, the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion to sever, finding that the defendant had not shown substantial prejudice beyond that inherent in joinder. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the mandatory 75-month Measure 11 sentence imposed for the conviction involving M, holding that it was unconstitutionally disproportionate under the Oregon Constitution.The Supreme Court of the State of Oregon reviewed both issues. It held that the trial court erred in denying the motion to sever because the defendant had articulated a case-specific theory of substantial prejudice, supported by the record, as required by State v. Delaney. The Supreme Court clarified that when such a showing is made, the trial court must provide some remedy to address the prejudice. However, the error was deemed harmless as to the counts involving A, so those convictions were affirmed. The conviction involving M was reversed and remanded for a new trial. The Supreme Court did not reach the sentencing issue in light of this disposition. The Court of Appeals’ decision was affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "State v. Hernandez-Esteban" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who pleaded guilty to charges of attempted possession of heroin and unlawful use of a vehicle (UUV) in Lake County Circuit Court. The court imposed a departure sentence of 24 months' supervised probation for the UUV offense. While on probation, the defendant was involved in a serious automobile accident in Jefferson County, leading to multiple charges. The defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of failure to perform the duties of a driver (FPDD) and was sentenced to 75 months in prison.The Lake County court then revoked the defendant's probation for the UUV offense and imposed an 18-month prison term, to be served consecutively to the Jefferson County sentences. The defendant objected, arguing that the sentencing guidelines did not authorize consecutive sentences in this context. The trial court disagreed and imposed the consecutive sentence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision in a nonprecedential opinion.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the trial court had the authority to impose a consecutive sentence after revoking the defendant's probation. The court held that Article I, section 44(1)(b) of the Oregon Constitution, which states that no law shall limit a court's authority to sentence a criminal defendant consecutively for crimes against different victims, supersedes any sentencing guidelines that would prevent such a consecutive sentence. The court concluded that the trial court did not err in imposing the consecutive sentence and affirmed the decisions of the Court of Appeals and the circuit court. View "State v. Logston" on Justia Law

The case involves Delta Air Lines, Inc. and PacifiCorp, both of which are centrally assessed businesses in Oregon. Under Oregon law, centrally assessed businesses are taxed on their intangible property, unlike locally assessed businesses. Delta and PacifiCorp challenged this tax, arguing it violated the state and federal constitutions by not being uniform and by violating equal protection and privileges clauses.The Oregon Tax Court addressed both cases in a single opinion, ruling in favor of Delta by finding the tax on intangible property unconstitutional for air transportation businesses. However, it ruled against PacifiCorp, upholding the tax for utilities. The Tax Court concluded that there were no genuine differences between the intangible property of centrally assessed air transportation businesses and locally assessed businesses, but found differences for utilities.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case, focusing on whether the tax classifications were rationally related to a legitimate governmental purpose. The court reversed the Tax Court's decision regarding Delta, holding that the tax on intangible property for centrally assessed businesses is constitutional. The court found that the legislature's decision to tax intangible property of centrally assessed businesses, but not locally assessed ones, was rationally related to legitimate purposes such as administrative efficiency, expertise in valuation, and balancing revenue against resources. The court also affirmed the Tax Court's decision regarding PacifiCorp in a separate opinion, maintaining the tax's constitutionality for utilities. The case was remanded to the Tax Court for further proceedings. View "Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue" on Justia Law

The defendant is being prosecuted for the murder of DB. The state challenged a trial court order that suppressed statements the defendant made about DB while in custody for an unrelated crime. At the time of his arrest for the unrelated crime, the defendant was already a suspect in DB's death and was represented by counsel in connection with the DB investigation. The counsel had instructed officers to contact her before questioning the defendant about DB. However, when officers arrested the defendant for the unrelated crime, they advised him of his right to remain silent and to speak with an attorney but did not notify his attorney before conducting an interrogation that led to incriminating statements about DB.The Deschutes County Circuit Court granted the defendant's pretrial motion to suppress the statements, ruling that officers violated the defendant's right to counsel under Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution by conducting the interrogation without notifying the defendant's counsel. The state pursued an immediate and direct appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.The Oregon Supreme Court concluded that the right to counsel under Article I, section 11, was not triggered by the defendant's arrest and custodial interrogation regarding crimes for which he had not been charged. The court emphasized that protections under Article I, section 11, ordinarily do not arise until a person has been charged with a crime. The court also declined to consider the defendant's alternative argument that Article I, section 12, provided a basis for affirming the trial court's decision. Consequently, the Oregon Supreme Court reversed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State v. Kilby" on Justia Law

An informant informed law enforcement that a person named "Tom Collins" was dealing heroin from a residence in Albany, Oregon. Detectives planned to use the informant in a controlled buy at the residence. Instead of waiting for the results of the controlled buy to apply for a warrant, the detectives applied for and obtained a search warrant that anticipated the controlled buy. The state argued that the warrant was an "anticipatory warrant" as approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in United States v. Grubbs. The defendant argued that such warrants are incompatible with Article I, section 9, of the Oregon Constitution.The Linn County Circuit Court denied the defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained from the search, ruling that anticipatory warrants were valid under both the Oregon and U.S. Constitutions. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that anticipatory warrants were permissible under Article I, section 9, and that the affidavit established probable cause.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and declined to address the constitutional question. Instead, the court focused on Oregon's statutory warrant requirements, specifically ORS 133.555(2) and ORS 133.545(6). The court concluded that the affidavit in support of the warrant failed to comply with ORS 133.545(6), which requires that the facts and circumstances show that the objects of the search are in the places to be searched at the time of the warrant's issuance. As a result, the warrant did not comply with ORS 133.555(2), and the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to suppress.The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the judgment of the circuit court, remanding the case to the circuit court for further proceedings. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

The defendant was charged with reckless driving and recklessly endangering another person. Unable to secure counsel, the defendant represented himself at trial, where his arguments were not responsive to the charges, leading to his conviction by a jury. On appeal, the defendant continued to represent himself, filing a pro se brief with arguments similar to those made at trial. The state interpreted the brief as challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions in a nonprecedential opinion.After the defendant was appointed appellate counsel in a separate case, the Court of Appeals also appointed counsel for this case. However, the case had already been submitted for decision. The appellate counsel filed an emergency motion to withdraw the case from submission to file a brief, arguing that the defendant had not validly waived his right to counsel and that the trial court erred in not ordering a competency evaluation. The Court of Appeals denied the motion but invited a petition for reconsideration, which was also denied.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and allowed the petition for review. The court granted the joint motion for remand, vacating the Court of Appeals' decision and the circuit court’s judgment of conviction. The Supreme Court agreed with the parties that the record did not show the defendant had validly waived his right to counsel, as there was no colloquy or indication of a knowing and intelligent waiver. The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings, ensuring the defendant's right to a new trial with proper legal representation. View "State v. Cotter" on Justia Law

The case involves a defendant who intentionally set a fire in her apartment building, resulting in property damage and serious injuries to another resident. The defendant was convicted of first-degree arson after the trial court found that she had intentionally caused the fire and recklessly placed others in danger of physical injury. During sentencing, the trial court considered various mitigating circumstances related to the defendant's mental health and personal history and concluded that the mandatory 90-month prison sentence was unconstitutionally disproportionate. Instead, the court imposed a 60-month term of probation.The state appealed the trial court's decision, and the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's ruling. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court had erred in relying on the defendant's personal characteristics and circumstances in its proportionality analysis. The appellate court concluded that the 90-month mandatory minimum sentence required by ORS 137.700(2)(b)(A) was not constitutionally disproportionate as applied to the defendant.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether the mandatory minimum sentence violated the proportionality clause of Article I, section 16, of the Oregon Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, holding that the 90-month mandatory minimum sentence for first-degree arson was not unconstitutionally disproportionate. The court reasoned that the defendant's conduct was egregious and caused significant harm, and that there was no societal consensus or objective evidence indicating that individuals with mental health issues similar to the defendant's are less morally culpable for their crimes. Therefore, the mandatory minimum sentence did not shock the moral sense of reasonable people. View "State v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

The case involves the defendant, who was charged with 46 sex crimes against the same person over an eight-year period. The counts in the indictment were identical and did not specify the incidents they were based on. During the first trial, the state did not link any specific incidents to the counts, and the jury found the defendant not guilty of 40 counts and guilty of six. The defendant appealed, arguing an evidentiary error, and the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case.On remand, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, claiming that retrying him on the six counts of conviction would violate his constitutional rights against double jeopardy. The trial court denied the motion, and the case proceeded to a second jury trial, where the defendant was again convicted of the six counts. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to dismiss.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case and found that the Court of Appeals had erred in resolving the case on preservation grounds. The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant had consistently raised the same double jeopardy argument throughout the case: that due to the lack of specificity in the indictment and the first trial, it was impossible to determine the factual basis for any count, and there was a risk that he would be convicted based on incidents of which he had already been acquitted. The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings to address the merits of the double jeopardy issue. View "State v. Dodge" on Justia Law

Yamhill County filed an in rem civil forfeiture action against a property in Yamhill, Oregon, alleging it was used to facilitate prohibited conduct. Sheryl Lynn Sublet, who claimed an interest in the property, opposed the forfeiture, arguing it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment because she had already been prosecuted for the same conduct. The trial court rejected her argument, and a jury found in favor of the county, leading to a judgment forfeiting the property.The Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, agreeing with Sublet that the forfeiture was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court held that civil forfeiture in Oregon is effectively a criminal penalty, thus implicating double jeopardy protections.The Oregon Supreme Court reviewed the case to determine whether civil forfeiture under Oregon law constitutes criminal punishment for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. The court concluded that the civil forfeiture scheme under ORS chapter 131A is intended to be remedial and not punitive. The court emphasized that the forfeiture proceeds through an in rem action, targeting the property itself rather than the owner, and incorporates distinctly civil procedures. The court found no clear proof that the forfeiture's purpose and effect are punitive, thus it does not trigger double jeopardy protections.The Oregon Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that civil forfeiture under current Oregon law does not constitute criminal punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. View "Yamhill County v. Real Property" on Justia Law